Saturday, December 5, 2009
Breaking News: Mehlville Fire Tax Issue is Still Up in the Air
I was just told by a spokesperson for the Missouri Attorney General's office that they have made no decision regarding the Mehlville Fire Protection District's tax rate for 2010. Any comments made by the district, the Call Newspapers or the Truth Defector are obviously premature.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
We all have the feeling the Mehlville Fire Department BOD's hole is getting deeper by the week.
Will big changes be coming? Stay tuned....
1:51 pm, As a citizen and tax payer I sure hope so. I was informed by a firefighter the amount of lawsuites thathave been filed by both employees and citizens. HOW MUCH IS THIS COSTING THE TAX PAYERS? My next question when is this crap going to quit? In my mind it won't quit untl there is a complete change on the fire board:
if you look at the center of the hole youll find JS
I hear the Truth Detector dug the hole he is in the bottom of it
No hole at all as you will soon discover. Have you heard that an investigation has begun to probe false statements made to the FBI by Local 1889, Skelton and yourself?
5:38 That's cute except I haven't spoken to anyone from the FBI. You Hilmer worshippers just like to make stuff up, don't you?
more like tim moore investigaation
Have you seen this about Tim Moore:
Before the
Administrative Hearing Commission
State of Missouri
DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT )
OF PUBLIC SAFETY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 02-1928 PO
)
TIMOTHY H. MOORE, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION
We find that Timothy Moore’s peace officer certificate is subject to discipline because Moore caused false tickets and a false summons to be issued to his ex-wife.
Procedure
On December 30, 2002, the Director of the Department of Public Safety (Director) filed a complaint alleging that there is cause to discipline Moore’s peace officer certificate. The parties submitted the case for decision on video depositions and briefs. Assistant Attorney General Theodore Bruce represented the Director. Robert Sears of Lathrop & Gage LC represented Moore. The matter became ready for our decision on September 26, 2003, the date the last brief was due.
Findings of Fact
A. June 29, 2001
1. Moore is licensed as a peace officer. On June 29, 2001, he was employed by the
St. Louis Police Department (the Department) as a police officer.
2. Moore was formerly married to Terri Naidoo. They divorced in 1993. They had two children, one of whom is deceased. At the time of these events, she was remarried and had had another child. Since 1993, they have been to court numerous times over issues relating to child support and visitation. Naidoo reported Moore to the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD) in 1994 over an issue relating to marital property; the report was unsustained. She has also reported him to the IRS for what she considered to be improper deductions on his income tax.
3. On June 29, 2001, Moore’s current wife, Ricki Moore, drove past Tucker’s bar in the Soulard area of St. Louis. She recognized Naidoo’s car parked on the street near the bar. The car was easily recognizable: it was a white Mitsubishi Eclipse with a personalized license plate reading “FALNME.” Ricki Moore told her husband that she had seen Naidoo’s car.
4. Moore called several acquaintances of his whom he believed would be working in the area that evening: Ernie Kautz, a security guard; Myles McDonnell and Kevin Klupe, both state liquor control agents; Bob Kraberg, the city excise commissioner, and Tony McDuffy, a police sergeant. He asked them to “keep an eye out for” Naidoo.
5. Naidoo went to Tucker’s bar after work with co-workers. Later, they all went to another bar, Gladstones. Naidoo parked her car under a street light, “catty corner” from Gladstones, close enough to be visible from the entrance.
6. Naidoo left Gladstones between 11:00 and 11:30 p.m. Rick Donovan, a man she had met that evening, walked her to her car, where they kissed for a few minutes. After that, she drove home.
7. Kautz watched Naidoo as she exited the bar and drove off. He followed her briefly in his car. Afterward, he called Moore and discussed with him what he had observed.
8. Kautz wrote a false report of what he observed that night for his employer.
B. June 30 – July 7, 2001
9. Within a few hours of his conversation with Kautz, Moore called a fellow officer, David Bonenberger, and asked him to write two traffic tickets for running red lights, and a summons for lewd and indecent conduct, on his wife, based on Kautz’s report of her conduct. He did not feel he could write the tickets and summons (together, the “citations” ) because he knew that if anyone connected him to them, they would be thrown out because of his past relationship with Naidoo. Moore asked Bonenberger to call Kautz about what he had seen, and he asked Kautz to call Bonenberger.
11. Bonenberger and Kautz did discuss the matter, but Bonenberger eventually refused to write the citations. After that, Moore asked Officer Eric Lambing to write them. Moore told him that Bonenberger had agreed to do it, but had been unable to do so before an injury took him off of work. Summonses for violations of city ordinances must be written within five days after the incident occurs or they are not prosecuted. Lambing eventually agreed to write the citations, but refused to sign them. Moore forged Bonenberger’s signature on the citations, but he did not
obtain a sergeant’s signature or a reference number from the Department’s computer system, required for prosecution, on the summons. He then placed them in the Department’s outgoing mail.
12. On July 6 or 7, 2001, Naidoo received two envelopes from the St. Louis City Police Department. One envelope contained the two traffic tickets. The other contained the summons for lewd and indecent conduct, but there was no description of the conduct on the summons. The summons did contain a court date, however: October 3, 2001. That was Moore and Naidoo’s anniversary.
August 28, 2001
13. Naidoo and Moore went back to court on August 28, 2001, over matters relating to child support and visitation. Moore’s attorney had a copy of the summons on that date, and he showed the summons to Naidoo’s attorney, but he did not try to use it.
14. The copy of the summons for lewd and indecent conduct that Moore produced on August 28, 2001, differed from the one Naidoo received in the mail in that it had a description of the conduct at issue. It stated:
On the above date I was advised by S.O. Ernie Kautz . . . that he observed the subject kneeling inside the open drivers door of a 2000 white 2 door Mitsubishi Eclipse bearing Mo. for 2001 License plate FLNME performing fellatio on an unknown male seated in the drivers seat. After finishing, the male exited the vehicle. The subject entered the vehicle and drove off.
15. Also on August 28, 2001, Naidoo made an anonymous complaint by telephone to IAD about the citations.
September – November, 2001
16. Around the beginning of September, Bonenberger was going on vacation, and the summons appeared as an incomplete item on his own status report. He wanted to clear up
unfinished business before his vacation, so he checked into it. He found no paperwork corresponding to the summons’ complaint number, so he voided it.
17. Naidoo made a complaint to IAD about the citations, in person, on September 11, 2001.
18. IAD investigated the matter in October and November 2001. Sergeant Al Klein interviewed Moore, Bonenberger, and Lamping. All told Klein at first that Bonenberger had filled out and signed the citations. However, shortly after their first interviews, they decided to tell the truth about the citations and requested second interviews.
19. Moore subsequently resigned from the St. Louis Police Department.
Conclusions of Law
We have jurisdiction to hear this case. Section 621.045. The Director has the burden of proving that Moore has committed an act for which the law allows discipline. Missouri Real Estate Comm’n v. Berger, 764 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Mo. App., E.D. 1989).
The Director argues that there is cause for discipline under § 590.135.2(6), which was repealed effective August 28, 2001, and § 590.080(2) and (3), RSMo Supp. 2002, which became effective on that date. We apply the statute in effect when the conduct occurred. Section 1.170; Comerio v. Beatrice Foods Co., 595 F. Supp. 918, 920-21 (E.D. Mo. 1984). Normally that involves choosing between the two statutes, but in this case the Director pleaded in the conjunctive, not the alternative, and the conduct complained of is alleged to have taken place both before and after August 28, 2001. Thus, this case potentially involves the application of both statutes. We address each below. First, however, we discuss the events of June 29, 2001, and the credibility of the witnesses.
What Happened on June 29, 2001?
Moore argues that Naidoo engaged in three separate sex acts at her car on the night of June 29, 2001. He alleges that she performed oral sex on her male companion while he was sitting in the driver’s seat of her car, then they switched places and he performed oral sex on her. He alleges that after both those acts were completed, she straddled him in the front seat of her car and they had sexual intercourse. He says that he only filled in one of the acts on the citation because there wasn’t enough space on the form for all three.
Moore argues that he asked friends and coworkers to watch Naidoo that night because he believed that she was engaging in risky behaviors, such as taking drugs and drinking and driving, that endangered her children. He hoped that the result of this would be to “cause her to get some help and change her ways.” He argues that Naidoo did commit the conduct that was the subject of the citations. He admits that he signed his colleague’s name to the citations, but says that he had permission to do so and that his motive in doing so was to help Naidoo and protect her children. Naidoo admits that she kissed Donovan that night at her car, but denies that she committed any of the other sex acts or traffic violations.
Neither Naidoo nor Moore is an especially credible witness. Both had motives to impugn the other’s reputation. Moore wished to use Naidoo’s bad acts against her when they returned to court on their child custody and visitation issues. Naidoo had previously filed an unsustained report on Moore with IAD and had also reported him to the IRS. The clear picture is of two ex-spouses who harbor ill feelings against each other and do not hesitate to act on those ill feelings.
However, Moore’s testimony about what happened that night is even less convincing than Naidoo’s. He continues to insist that Naidoo committed the sex acts in question, yet his testimony about the night differs significantly from that of his own eyewitness, Kautz. When
asked what he saw that night, Kautz said, “Possible lewd behavior . . . I saw the actions that could be perceived as lewd. As actually being close enough to actually see the whole act, I was not close enough to actually say that that’s exactly what happened.” In response to the question, “Did you indicate to Officer Moore when you described the events to him that it wasn’t quite clear to you exactly what had happened?”, Kautz replied: “Yeah, I told him exactly what I observed.” This seems a poor foundation for issuing a summons for performing fellatio in the front seat of a car.
There are other inconsistencies between Kautz’s account and Moore’s, as well. Kautz says he did not know that the woman he was watching was Moore’s ex-wife; Moore says he told him. Kautz said that he followed her when she drove away to try to get a license plate, but also says that Moore physically showed him the car at the beginning of the evening. Kautz says that Moore told him to keep an eye on the vehicle because it possibly had drugs in it; Moore says that he simply asked people to keep an eye on his ex-wife. The inconsistencies undermine the credibility of Moore’s account of his actions and motivations. We find that Naidoo did not commit the conduct on which the citations are based and that Moore had reason to believe she did not.
Section 590.135.2(6)
Section 590.135.2(6) authorizes discipline for “gross misconduct indicating inability to function as a peace officer.” Misconduct means “the willful doing of an act with a wrongful intention[;] intentional wrongdoing.” Missouri Bd. for Arch’ts, Prof’l Eng’rs & Land Surv’rs v. Duncan, No. AR-84-0239 (Mo. Admin. Hearing Comm’n Nov. 15, 1984) at 125, aff’d 744 S.W.2d 524 (Mo. App., E.D. 1988). The term “gross” raises this above the level of ordinary misconduct and indicates that either an especially egregious mental state or harm is required.
Duncan, 744 S.W.2d at 533. Inability is “lack of sufficient power, resources or capacity.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 585 (10th ed. 1993).
Even if everything happened as Moore reported – that Naidoo drank excessively, performed three sex acts in a car on a street corner in Soulard with a man she had met that evening, and ran two red lights when she drove away – it would still not excuse Moore’s subsequent actions in causing the citations to be filled out by one officer who had no personal knowledge of what had happened, signing the name without permission of another officer, and attempting to use the citations against Naidoo in a court proceeding. Even if he was motivated to do these things to “help” Naidoo and her children, they were an abuse of his position as a peace officer. Moore’s actions constitute gross misconduct indicating an inability to serve as a peace officer, and we find cause to discipline his certificate under § 590.135.2(6).
Section 590.080(2), RSMo Supp. 2002
Section 590.080(2), RSMo Supp. 2002, authorizes discipline if a peace officer “has committed any criminal offense, whether or not a criminal charge has been filed[.]” After August 28, 2001, Moore admits that he initially lied to IAD about who wrote and signed the citations when the investigation began. He still contends that they reflect events that actually happened – the alleged sexual acts and traffic violations committed by Naidoo – but we have found that he lied about those as well. The question is, did Moore commit a criminal offense on or after August 28, 2001, and if so, what?
The director cites no laws, but instead two actions that took place after that date to support his charge that Moore should be disciplined under § 590.080(2), RSMo Supp. 2002. The complaint states that during the internal investigation, Moore “encouraged and requested that fellow officers Bonenberger and Lambing provide false information to the investigating officers”
and that “[o]n or about November 7, 2001, Respondent provided false information to an internal affairs investigator by asserting that he had not requested that the summons or traffic tickets be issued.” In his brief, the Director argues that Moore:
· committed the crime of tampering with a police record in violation of § 575.110 by impairing the verity of the summons and citations by knowingly making a false entry and falsely altering the record;
· committed the crime of simulating legal process by delivering a “purported summons” to Ms. Naidoo knowing that the process was not “issued or authorized by any court”; and
· committed the crime of hindering prosecution under § 575.030, which occurs when a person prevents or obstructs by means of deception anyone from performing an act that might aid in the discovery of a criminal offense.
The first two alleged “crimes” took place before August 28, 2001; we may not find cause to discipline Moore’s certificate under § 590.080, RSMo Supp. 2002, for conduct that occurred before that date. The third took place after the effective date of § 590.080(2), RSMo Supp. 2002, but we find it problematic to find cause for discipline of a peace officer for committing a crime that is not set forth in the complaint against him. This is particularly true when the crime has several elements, such as hindering prosecution under § 575.030. Basic due process concerns dictate that the respondent be notified of the “crime” he committed that is the reason for disciplining or taking away his certification. Duncan, 744 S.W.2d at 538-39. In certain circumstances a description of the conduct might be adequate. Here we do not find it to be so.
Section 590.080(3), RSMo Supp. 2002
Section 590.080(3), RSMo Supp. 2002, authorizes discipline if a peace officer “has committed any act while on active duty or under color of law that involves moral turpitude or a reckless disregard for the safety of the public or any person[.]” Moral turpitude is
an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties, which a man owes to his fellowman or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man; everything “done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, and good morals.”
In re Frick, 694 S.W.2d 473, 479 (Mo. banc 1985) (quoting In re Wallace, 19 S.W.2d 625 (Mo. banc 1929)). Persuading his fellow officers to write false citations against his ex-wife was a base act that violated Moore’s basic social duties not only to her, but to them as well. Moore was on duty when he did this, and he used department mail and envelopes to send them to her. However, this occurred before August 28, 2001. After that date, he initially lied to IAD about his role in originating the citations, but we do not believe that this rises to the level of moral turpitude. Therefore, we do not find cause to discipline his certificate under § 590.080(3), RSMo Supp. 2002, for committing an act of moral turpitude while on active duty.
Summary
We find that Moore’s peace officer certificate is subject to discipline under § 590.135.2(6) for gross misconduct indicating an inability to function as a peace officer. We do not find cause for discipline under § 590.080(2) or (3), RSMo Supp. 2002.
SO ORDERED on November 25, 2003.
________________________________
KAREN A. WINN
Commissioner
this guy is perfect for Himer/Stonebreaker!
He's just a crook in sheeps clothing!
Yeah, Moore's a prince. And just think, he's the paragon of virtue who gathered "evidence" against union officers.
I wonder who would harass good people. and attempt to silence freedom of speech. If there was nothing wrong with the present BOD. WHO I ask?
Looks like this issue is decided, MFPD is collecting their taxes and there has been no lawsuits. Looks like it's all over to me.
time will tell you cowardly SOB. I here someoneelse is in the game now and your time is short on this. Merry Christmas you coward.
5:02 If this is true it would be all over the trthspot but the truth neglector and his goons are so screwed up they dont know what to do with these so called raises after 8 yrs looks like white and hilmer are kissing but to save face within the district to late you idiots and screw stonebraker!
Post a Comment